More adjustments to debate...

[mikestar]

McBruce's second adjustment is perfectly correct given the conditions of contest. He gives the players the CC to look at before they sign up and if they refuse to do so, that's their problem. Whether or not SAYC in general restricts negative doubles to 2S or lower is utterly irrelevant--the particular CC given in the conditions of contest does.

 

Having everyone play identical CC's (not necessarily SAYC) is not a bad idea in individuals. It has been done in invitational individuals involving world-class experts--normally the sponsor sets the CC after consultation with the players, then all players adhere to it.

[Cascade]

"I don't think the problem is McBruce's. SAYC appears to be a system that employs negative doubles up to 2♠."

 

At the risk of being pedantic Wayne, where does it say ONLY up to 2S?

As a pedant you are correct.

 

However I think the standard assumption if you play negative doubles to some level is that above that level they would be penalties.

[McBruce]

"Did you not realise that I used the 3D bid as an example? Apparently not! I said IF a 3D bid was described as such.. and not used , would you make an adjustment? You still have not answered the question - would you adjust if a player has a holding described in the sayc notes and does not make the "book" bid? here is another one. The bidding goes: 1D (1H) next hand holding AKQJ xxxx xx xxx bids 1S ratehr than making the "book" negative double. {1D — (1♥) — Double = exactly four spades (1♠ promises five)}. It CLEARLY states 1S shows 5 cards. Would you adjust McBruce?"

 

Yes I realized the 3D bid was an example. It was a bad example since there is no such explanation.

 

The rules of the tournament do not say you MUST make the book bid or I will adjust. They say that if you make a clearly non-sayc call, partner cannot act on that basis, and if he does and an advantage is gained, then (and only then) do I adjust. People make bids that are a point or two, or a card or two light all the time. I specifically tell everyone in the first round that I am not going to listen to complaints based on stuff like this.

 

It would take a bridge lawyer to argue that "negative doubles are used through 2♠" means that you have the option of using them further without violating system. Surely this is not where you're headed with "where does it say ONLY up to 2♠?" If I let that argument stand, soon I would need to allow Kickback Keycard Blackwood 4♠ after 1♥ - 4♥, because the book doesn't specifically disallow it. Etcetera ad infintum, except that it isn't a sayc-only tourney any more, is it.

 

Explain to me why the North player should gain an advantage by assuming a bid to be a disallowed convention AND getting lucky, over the other N-S pairs who stuck to the spirit of the game and passed the South hand.

[the hog]

My last post on this as it is somewhat pointless if you don't answer questions:

 

You still have not answered whether you would penalise someone who bid 1S rather than find the -ve double. The sayc notes clearly say 5 S are required - they make no mention of any judgement being allowed.

 

You also still have not expained away the conundrum of how we can play in 3S when an immediate 3S bid is forcing and a x is penalties.

 

Incidentally

It would take a bridge lawyer to argue that "negative doubles are used through 2♠" means that you have the option of using them further without violating system. Surely this is not where you're headed with "where does it say ONLY up to 2♠?"

This is exactly where I was headed.

[McBruce]

"My last post on this as it is somewhat pointless if you don't answer questions:"

 

Agree completely: it is pointless if you don't read my answers and draw the obvious conclusions from them.

 

"You still have not answered whether you would penalise someone who bid 1S rather than find the -ve double. The sayc notes clearly say 5 S are required - they make no mention of any judgement being allowed."

 

Perhaps not on that page, but on page one it says "Players may still exercise their bridge judgments." And when I write that "People make bids that are a point or two, or a card or two light all the time. I specifically tell everyone in the first round that I am not going to listen to complaints based on stuff like this" I think it is not a great leap for you to assume that my answer is no, I will not adjust.

 

"You also still have not expained away the conundrum of how we can play in 3S when an immediate 3S bid is forcing and a x is penalties."

 

How about passing and letting partner reopen the bidding with a double. Is that so hard?

 

"Incidentally

It would take a bridge lawyer to argue that "negative doubles are used through 2♠" means that you have the option of using them further without violating system. Surely this is not where you're headed with "where does it say ONLY up to 2♠?"

This is exactly where I was headed."

 

You have a right to your opinion. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[luis]

This thread degenerated in a very curious exchange of opinions.

I think nobody realizes that there're that a booklet can't be used to determine what to bid in each situation. Even playing negative doubles up to 2s if the auction starts 1c(3d) I'd take a double by pd as takeout. If my pd thinks the same we are not "fielding" anything, we are on the same wavelength of serious Bridge.

[mikestar]

... Even playing negative doubles up to 2s if the auction starts 1c(3d) I'd take a double by pd as takeout. If my pd thinks the same we are not "fielding" anything, we are on the same wavelength of serious Bridge.

I don't know about other NCBO's but in ACBL-land this will get a director call and a score adjustment. In absence of special conditions of contest, it is perfectly legal to play negative doubles in this auction--its common to play them higher than this, but if your CC is marked "Negative doubles thru 2S", then you have a mismarked CC which is an infraction. Such an indication on your CC tells an opponent that 1C-(1D)-X is a penalty double--not necessarily a trump stack, but requesting partner pass rather than bid.

 

Would it also be appropriate for 1N-2D to be a transfer and have your CC say it is natural?

 

This entire thread started as a question of "Law", not "Serious Bridge".

[Gweny]

:rolleyes: I agree with you Luis, Mike....

this is TD director forum ... it start as thing on making adjustments

[zibuyu]

For the 2nd case, the player who openned 1C can bid of ccouse after partner's dbl. It would be so ridiculous if a player can not bid after partner's dbl 3c or higher. Should I pass after p's dbl when I believe 3NT or 4S or 6C better? According ot the Mc's rule, I can do nothing but pass p's dbl over 2S.

 

TD can do adjustment in some cases. Mcbruce can adjust score in the 2nd case just beacause they got a coincident contract, but not that player bidded after p's dbl 3D.